"Don't use their advertising, don't use their outdated ways of thinking."
I don't think this is good advice without knowing the company involved or the music scene she's a part of (or trying to be a part of). Like the diapers, it depends.
It doesn't matter. There are sales that should be accounted for. It can take a lot of time to compile (especially for us small indies, cough cough), but a corporation like EMI with an army of bookkeepers & accountants?
I guarantee you they've spent more money delaying & obfuscating (in legal fees and labor costs) than any amount of $ the band may have been owed.
For these major labels (again, DIFFERENT than other labels- though some indies are just as shady), it's clearly part of the business plan to kick and scream before releasing accounting, let alone royalty payments, to catalog artists.
It's good you're a lawyer, that's a big step right there. (We tell all of our bands to get a lawyer to read our agreements. We want these to serve as ground rules that both sides *understand* so there's no confusion later on.)
It depends on what type of music & what "scene" she's aiming to be a part of, but I think this should help no matter what:
Artist advice:
1. Play live as much as possible. Build up a fanbase. Tour. Tour again. Tour again.
2. Document tours, recording sessions, make home-made videos, release demos to fans.
3. Work with and swap information with similar artists and record labels who are in the same musical scene. Small labels are generally interested in sharing resources.
Like someone else said, bands & artists should be doing this stuff regardless of whether or not they are on a large indie label, a small indie label, or a major label.
Record label advice:
1. About publishing ("don't sell your copyrights")- it's more expensive, but if you pay for the masters, you own the recording masters. THAT'S important.
2. If you can, license the masters to the label instead of allowing them to own the masters. In other words, keep ownership of the masters. It allows you flexibility and later on allows the music to be reissued on a different label even if the original label is stone-walling you or is defunct.
(We do a fair amount of reissues and run into this ALL the time. We just had to cancel a greatest hits retrospective of one of our bands because Universal refused to even discuss licensing some of the songs with us. VERY frustrating for the band, us, and their fans who were expecting the album)
3. Be open to licensing opportunities that are appropriate for the artist. That is one thing that record labels are usually better able to exploit for the artist- finding licensing deals- than the artist on his or her own. They get a cut for doing so.
There are definitely indie labels who stonewall and don't pay and lie as badly as the majors, but the % of majors who act like this to at least some of their artist is 100%, while the % of indies is much lower.
Not sure where major-label partially/fully-owned former indie labels are in these statistics, but yes.
The photo dates from the 1950s, so it was actually near its copyright expiration date the 1st time it was used for this release.
I can't use a different photo because this is a repress and if we're going to use the original art, well, yeah. I can't substitute another photo, or at least I can't without a lot of back and forth with the band.
P.S.- I've found the photo in a college's photography collection. They should know if the image is public domain or not.
I'm trying to track down if a photo used for a punk record we're reissuing is in the public domain or not. I have a one-use letter from 1981, but I can't figure out if the copyright was renewed or not, let alone find a trace of the photo in the libraries of the major photo licensing companies.
(Luckily, it's a well-known documentary photographer, so at least there's a good chance to find it if it's still under copyright. I think.)
It's really frustrating though. The amount of fruitless searching I'm doing shows me how tempting it is to just go ahead & use the photo and cross my fingers that it won't be noticed. Ugh.
Ugh, I hope the timid bosses @ the Department of Health either grow a spine or are overruled by their bosses.
Glad to see the ridicule of anti-vaxxers here. Their decision to not vaccinate impacts the rest of the population, and endangers the young, weak, and old amongst us.
For instance, infants under a year old are too young to be vaccinated, so they're at risk if the area's vaccination level is below 95% (that's the % that pretty much guarantees measles won't spread in a community)
... that this article & these comments signify 2 things.
1. There is a strong probability of violation of freedom of speech/freedom of assembly rights by this government agency. The statement specifically targeting constitutionally-allowed speech and constitutionally-allowed assembly shows this. It falls under "prior restraint."
2. The FCC is actually doing what it should be doing. Protecting the people's airwaves from illegal interference by government and/or private entities.
Possibly unconnected tangent:
In many legal situations, once a service is provided, removing it becomes a detriment that needs to be remedied/mitigated. I don't know if that applies here- since the government agency supplied FCC-regulated technological access, does it need to mitigate the removal of that access?
As General Manager of Alternative Tentacles Records, indie label since 1979 and currently distributed physically & digitally by Revolver, I think it's silly to pull one's catalog from ANY digital service that's actually (gasp!) paying labels.
Yes, streamed songs (Spotify, Rhapsody, Jango, Pandora) are paid at a much lower rate than digital sales (iTunes, eMusic), but it's still income that the label & the artist can split.
Seriously, that's completely backwards and a big disservice to their sub-labels & their bands.
P.S.- The comments about CDs being dead are not accurate. We sell less CDs than before, and more vinyl & more digital than before, but CDs are still strong, depending on the band.
Here's more info on the Sun & other UK rags attacks on the technology:
Oddly enough, this article mirrors (pun intended, The Mirror, get it? I kill me!) a fair amount of what's been said in this thread above.
from International Business Times:
UK Media: Riots Fueled by BlackBerry, Facebook, and Twitter
UK newspapers The Daily Mail and The Sun have both gone on record blaming Twitter for enabling or escalating the violence that exploded in UK's Tottenham area over the weekend. The Daily Mail "fears that violence was fanned by Twitter " and referred to the looting as a "Twitter riot" in one photograph's caption...
What none of these stories go so far as to say is that mobile technology and social media are common factors creating an uncomfortable resemblance between criminal riots and the kinds of demonstrations that marked the Arab Spring uprisings. While the difference between a protest and a riot may be largely a matter of whether or not one identifies with the ruling political administration, it is undeniable that the unique features of social media and wireless technology make both types of mass action more effective.
This would certainly not be the first time that The Sun and The Daily Mail have used technology as a handy scapegoat to appeal to an older, conservative, and/ or technologically illiterate readership. Of course, all three of the media companies mentioned have a significant presence on Twitter and Facebook -- and it's worth betting that they count a number of BlackBerry users among their (voice mail hacking?) employees.
Actually, no. The amount of units in NYC, or at least the "desirable" boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn, would quickly be filled by well-off people from elsewhere who want a NYC address. Even when you add rent-control apartments to the mix, the supply is so limited that there's no negative effect on overall rent.
[For instance, here in Berkeley there is a seemingly endless supply of well-off out-of-state students whose parents are willing to pay big $ for little Johnny & Judy to have a sweet studio apartment for $2000/month (above market).]
The rent'll just keep going up. The question, which isn't what I've been reading in these comments or in the original post, is if the INCREASE in rents is slightly slowed by such releases of rent-controlled units into the market.
Even if this is the case, please note that everyone's rent in a market with limited supply still increases, just not as fast as usual. No one's rent decreases unless there is a massive bubble that bursts or there is a reason that the area becomes much less desirable (say, the Black Plague hits Manhattan).
Out here, rents cooled off when the housing bubble burst, but only backed down a few tens of dollars. Example: A studio that was $600 in 1995 hit $1300 by 2005 and backed down to $1200 in 2009.
Rent Control... a bit far off the beaten path for Tech Dirt...
Among other things, I am an elected member of the Berkeley Rent Board.
When California passed vacancy decontrol in the late 1990s (this said that historically low rents stopped when a new tenant moved in, removing the low base rent that apartments previously started from), rents shot up. Since 1998, when a tenant moves out of a unit w/ "historically low rent" the property owner can now charge "market rate," whatever that may be.
(All future rent increases are regulated [based on the CPI], tenants are protected against unjust eviction, and all other protections of rent control are in place)
In California's case, the addition of more rental units didn't make rents fall, due to the desirability of the area- just like in NYC.
If people have specific questions or have an interest in many in-depth analyses of rent control and its effects on social, economic, ethnic diversity, head on over to the Berkeley Rent Board site. We've got many programs that protect law-abiding tenants and landlords, and provide counseling and a mediation process.
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: This is the shortest, most succinct explanation
On the post: RIAA Sending DMCA Takedowns On *FREE* Music Being Distributed Directly Off Universal Music Website & Promoted By The Artist
There is nothing...
Literally nothing. What's the point of the RIAA if they can't even get this basic crap right? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question)
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Re: Reason for existance
I'm shocked! Completely shocked!
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Re: Re: Nice article. Very interesting. But...
(does this count as an example of CwF + RtB?)
On the post: More Misplaced Hatred For The Used Games Market
(smacks head)
Complaining about used merchandise? Really? I had no idea. It's like getting pissed off about Betamax & VHS.
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Re: Re: My wife wants to become an artist
I don't think this is good advice without knowing the company involved or the music scene she's a part of (or trying to be a part of). Like the diapers, it depends.
Other than that, you're spot on.
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Re: Re:
I guarantee you they've spent more money delaying & obfuscating (in legal fees and labor costs) than any amount of $ the band may have been owed.
For these major labels (again, DIFFERENT than other labels- though some indies are just as shady), it's clearly part of the business plan to kick and scream before releasing accounting, let alone royalty payments, to catalog artists.
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Re: My wife wants to become an artist
It's good you're a lawyer, that's a big step right there. (We tell all of our bands to get a lawyer to read our agreements. We want these to serve as ground rules that both sides *understand* so there's no confusion later on.)
It depends on what type of music & what "scene" she's aiming to be a part of, but I think this should help no matter what:
Artist advice:
1. Play live as much as possible. Build up a fanbase. Tour. Tour again. Tour again.
2. Document tours, recording sessions, make home-made videos, release demos to fans.
3. Work with and swap information with similar artists and record labels who are in the same musical scene. Small labels are generally interested in sharing resources.
Like someone else said, bands & artists should be doing this stuff regardless of whether or not they are on a large indie label, a small indie label, or a major label.
Record label advice:
1. About publishing ("don't sell your copyrights")- it's more expensive, but if you pay for the masters, you own the recording masters. THAT'S important.
2. If you can, license the masters to the label instead of allowing them to own the masters. In other words, keep ownership of the masters. It allows you flexibility and later on allows the music to be reissued on a different label even if the original label is stone-walling you or is defunct.
(We do a fair amount of reissues and run into this ALL the time. We just had to cancel a greatest hits retrospective of one of our bands because Universal refused to even discuss licensing some of the songs with us. VERY frustrating for the band, us, and their fans who were expecting the album)
3. Be open to licensing opportunities that are appropriate for the artist. That is one thing that record labels are usually better able to exploit for the artist- finding licensing deals- than the artist on his or her own. They get a cut for doing so.
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Nice article. Very interesting. But...
There are definitely indie labels who stonewall and don't pay and lie as badly as the majors, but the % of majors who act like this to at least some of their artist is 100%, while the % of indies is much lower.
Not sure where major-label partially/fully-owned former indie labels are in these statistics, but yes.
On the post: Need More Public Domain Material?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just in time? its a drawing
I just thought it was a sweet coincidence that this article popped up while I was in photo-library search hell.
On the post: Need More Public Domain Material?
Re: Re: Just in time?
I can't use a different photo because this is a repress and if we're going to use the original art, well, yeah. I can't substitute another photo, or at least I can't without a lot of back and forth with the band.
P.S.- I've found the photo in a college's photography collection. They should know if the image is public domain or not.
On the post: Need More Public Domain Material?
Just in time?
(Luckily, it's a well-known documentary photographer, so at least there's a good chance to find it if it's still under copyright. I think.)
It's really frustrating though. The amount of fruitless searching I'm doing shows me how tempting it is to just go ahead & use the photo and cross my fingers that it won't be noticed. Ugh.
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Crossing fingers for a spine to be grown...
Glad to see the ridicule of anti-vaxxers here. Their decision to not vaccinate impacts the rest of the population, and endangers the young, weak, and old amongst us.
For instance, infants under a year old are too young to be vaccinated, so they're at risk if the area's vaccination level is below 95% (that's the % that pretty much guarantees measles won't spread in a community)
This 2010 blog post talks about measles outbreaks in Vancouver, San Diego, & Switzerland:
http://vaccinesandevolution.blogspot.com/2010/04/measels-outbreak-because-anti-vax-is. html
On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law
Re: Exactly how much is BART going to spend defending this in court?
On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law
Re:
Also, I'd imagine the regulations allow for emergency calls.
On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law
It's clear to me...
1. There is a strong probability of violation of freedom of speech/freedom of assembly rights by this government agency. The statement specifically targeting constitutionally-allowed speech and constitutionally-allowed assembly shows this. It falls under "prior restraint."
2. The FCC is actually doing what it should be doing. Protecting the people's airwaves from illegal interference by government and/or private entities.
Possibly unconnected tangent:
In many legal situations, once a service is provided, removing it becomes a detriment that needs to be remedied/mitigated. I don't know if that applies here- since the government agency supplied FCC-regulated technological access, does it need to mitigate the removal of that access?
On the post: Record Label Says That Pulling Music From Spotify 'Protects Artists'
An independent record label chimes in...
Yes, streamed songs (Spotify, Rhapsody, Jango, Pandora) are paid at a much lower rate than digital sales (iTunes, eMusic), but it's still income that the label & the artist can split.
Seriously, that's completely backwards and a big disservice to their sub-labels & their bands.
P.S.- The comments about CDs being dead are not accurate. We sell less CDs than before, and more vinyl & more digital than before, but CDs are still strong, depending on the band.
On the post: London Riots? Blame The Blackberry!
Here's more info on the Sun & other UK rags attacks on the technology:
from International Business Times:
UK Media: Riots Fueled by BlackBerry, Facebook, and Twitter
UK newspapers The Daily Mail and The Sun have both gone on record blaming Twitter for enabling or escalating the violence that exploded in UK's Tottenham area over the weekend. The Daily Mail "fears that violence was fanned by Twitter " and referred to the looting as a "Twitter riot" in one photograph's caption...
What none of these stories go so far as to say is that mobile technology and social media are common factors creating an uncomfortable resemblance between criminal riots and the kinds of demonstrations that marked the Arab Spring uprisings. While the difference between a protest and a riot may be largely a matter of whether or not one identifies with the ruling political administration, it is undeniable that the unique features of social media and wireless technology make both types of mass action more effective.
This would certainly not be the first time that The Sun and The Daily Mail have used technology as a handy scapegoat to appeal to an older, conservative, and/ or technologically illiterate readership. Of course, all three of the media companies mentioned have a significant presence on Twitter and Facebook -- and it's worth betting that they count a number of BlackBerry users among their (voice mail hacking?) employees.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/194883/20110809/uk-media-riots-fueled-by-blackberry-fa cebook-and-twitter.htm
On the post: Rent Is Too Damn High Guy Increasing Rent For Others Because His Rent Is Too Damn Low
Re: Re:
[For instance, here in Berkeley there is a seemingly endless supply of well-off out-of-state students whose parents are willing to pay big $ for little Johnny & Judy to have a sweet studio apartment for $2000/month (above market).]
The rent'll just keep going up. The question, which isn't what I've been reading in these comments or in the original post, is if the INCREASE in rents is slightly slowed by such releases of rent-controlled units into the market.
Even if this is the case, please note that everyone's rent in a market with limited supply still increases, just not as fast as usual. No one's rent decreases unless there is a massive bubble that bursts or there is a reason that the area becomes much less desirable (say, the Black Plague hits Manhattan).
Out here, rents cooled off when the housing bubble burst, but only backed down a few tens of dollars. Example: A studio that was $600 in 1995 hit $1300 by 2005 and backed down to $1200 in 2009.
On the post: Rent Is Too Damn High Guy Increasing Rent For Others Because His Rent Is Too Damn Low
Rent Control... a bit far off the beaten path for Tech Dirt...
When California passed vacancy decontrol in the late 1990s (this said that historically low rents stopped when a new tenant moved in, removing the low base rent that apartments previously started from), rents shot up. Since 1998, when a tenant moves out of a unit w/ "historically low rent" the property owner can now charge "market rate," whatever that may be.
(All future rent increases are regulated [based on the CPI], tenants are protected against unjust eviction, and all other protections of rent control are in place)
In California's case, the addition of more rental units didn't make rents fall, due to the desirability of the area- just like in NYC.
If people have specific questions or have an interest in many in-depth analyses of rent control and its effects on social, economic, ethnic diversity, head on over to the Berkeley Rent Board site. We've got many programs that protect law-abiding tenants and landlords, and provide counseling and a mediation process.
Main page:
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/DepartmentHome.aspx?id=9546
Research reports:
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=53400
Next >>